University of RichmondUR Scholarship Repository

Honors Theses Student Research

5-1-1985

Political ethics and responsibility : the role of theelected officialJanet M. Muller

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion inHonors Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contactscholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.

Recommended CitationMuller, Janet M., "Political ethics and responsibility : the role of the elected official" (1985). Honors Theses. Paper 608.

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LIBRARIES

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 3 3082 01030 8178

POLITICAL ETHICS

AND RESPONSIBILITY:

THE ROLE OF THE ELECTED OFFICIAL

JANET M. MULLER

RELIGION HONORS

MAY 1, 1985

DR. ROBISON JAMES

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF' RICHMOND

VJRGINIA 23173

OUTLINE

I. Introduction

II. Role of the Representative A. Delegate View B. Trusteeship View C. Comparison of the Views D. The Superior Choice

III.Problem of Dirty Hands A. Definition of Dirty Hands B. Utilitarian View C. Niccolo Machiavelli/s View D. Max Weber/s View E. Albert Camus/ View F. Author's Interaction with Michael Walzer's

View

IV. Several Ethical Dilemmas A. The Party

1. Obligation to Party 2. Obligation to Constituents

B. Money 1. Campaign Expenses 2. Salaries

C. Media 1. Importance of Media 2. Trivial News 3. Imp or tan t News 4. Several Ways to Deal With Media Problems

V. Conclusion

1

INTRODUCTION

The word "politician" may, in today's society,

bring with it some very bad connotations. Most people

view politicians and elected officials as coniving

scoundrels, shady characters, and power hungry villains.

It may be true that some politicians are all of the

above and more, but many of the office holders who

run our legislatures and other branches of government

are concerned with what is ethically and morally correct

behavior in the political arena.

Unfortunately, the role of the elected public

official is not always clear cut. For example, there

is no universally acceptable definition of the duty

of being a "representative." Therefore, it is obvious

that every elected official has his own view of what

it means to "represent." ·However, this does not mean

that every view is morally justifiable. There is

a definite superior choice between the alternatives

that makes the other theories not as ethically acceptable.

Another ethical dilemma that the elected official

faces is

acts that

whether he

would not

is permitted to perform certain

be acceptable if performed by

2

an ordinary citizen. This concept is called "dirty

hands," and it raises many challenging questions con­

cerning the role of th~ political office holder.

Several smaller problems that a public figure

must contend with are the party with which one is

associated, campaign funds and salaries, and the media­

representative relationship. Each of these brings

with it moral uncertainties that an elected official

must confront.

It is important to deal with the professional

responsibility of the representative and the ethical

problems that must be handled. Political ethics are

of great importance to us, because we, as constituents,

are in a vulnerable position. The people whom we

elect to public office will ultimately have governmental

power over us; therefore, if we want those who represent

us to display certain moral and ethical values, then

the public has the obligation to provide certain well

thought out standards for their conduct. It is thus

necessary that some types of standards concerning

the behavior of the public officials be set up and

enforced. In dealing with various topics in this

paper , i t i s my

for the ethical

intent to outline some guidelines

and moral responsibilities of the

3

4

representative.

5

CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE:

THE DELEGATE VERSUS THE TRUSTEESHIP THEORY

There are many views, thoughts, feelings, and

philosophies concerning the responsibility of the

elected official. Two of the better known theories

are John Mill/s Delegate Theory and Edmund Burke/s

Trusteeship Theory. Despite their contradiction,

both are seen by their advocates as correct statements

of the moral responsibility of the representative.

The ethical duties that a public official would feel

necessary to adhere to would be affected by the theory

that he adopted, that of the Delegate or that of the

Trustee, so it will be necessary to deal first with

that question.

The Delegate theory asks the representative to

vote, form policies, and support issues that follow

the will of the majority of the constituents. The

representative is a substitute for the absent constituents,

and he conveys their views to the whole legislative

body. The Trusteeship theorist, on the other hand,

deemphasizes the duty of the elected official to

follow the desires of his constituents, and he will

follow those desires only as long as they agree with

his own best judgment. He would never sacrifice his

own beliefs. Thus, the official may or may not vote

as his constituents prefer, form policies they favor,

or even defend issues that those he represents support.

Any conflict between the representative;s conscience

and the will of the constituents would favor the former.l

During the formation of this country in the late

18th Century, the forefathers saw a very definite

role for the representative. A.H. Birch in his book,

Representation, notes that, "They expected members

of the legislative assemblies to act as delegates

to their constituents, and favoured frequent elections

to prevent the representatives from acquiring too

much independence."2 Sovereignty belonged to the

people while it was considered the duty.of the leaders

to represent the will of the people. Frequent elections

would assure the public that anyone who became too

self-serving would be quickly and easily removed from

1 Peter French, "Burking A Mill,H Ethical Issues in Government (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981)~ p.3.

A.H. Birch, Rep~~sentation (London: Pall Mall Press ltd, 1971), p.42.

6

office. Even the authors of The Federalist saw the

need for representatives to support sectional interests

so no group, area, or district would become too powerful.3

However, as this country progressed and theories

about the role of government developed, many disagreed

over exactly how the people should be represented.

Birch provides a list of three main usages of the

term representative. The first corresponds to the

Delegate view and the second to that of the Trusteeship

view.

Representation can be understood as the standing

in for another and thus, as being an exact likeness

of the absent one. 4 A public offical must represent

the wi 11 of the maj.or i ty of the constituents. In

performing that function, he is the intermediary who

relays his desires so that laws and policies can be

those desired by the constituents. However, his power

is limited by the ends of the people. This is repre-

sentative of the Del~gate view.

Another definition Birch presents sees the repre-

sentative as a spokesman who acts on behalf of his

~Birch, p.42. Birch, p .15.

7

principal. 5 As the representative strives to achieve

the goals of those he represents, he does not act

exactly as the one· he represents would. Successful

representation is thus based on how well the goals

of the represented are met. This corresponds to the

Trusteeship view.

The final way of viewing a representative, by

A.H. Birch, is as a symbol.6 Symbols resemble that

which they stand for, but they are not exact images.

' Elected officials may be persons who symbolize the

identities or qualities of a class or persons. It

is not necessary to deal further with this third un-

derstanding of the representative.

A dilemma immediat~ly arises because of the differ-

ences between the Trusteeship and the Delegate theories.

The Delegate must listen to and follow the needs,

desires, and opinions of his constituents, but the

Trustee must be true to his own will and judgment,

even if it differs from the will and judgment of his

constituents. Thus, should he do his own will or

the will of those he represents? Is it "representationu

if he does not do the will of his constituents? Or,

5 sirch, p.l5.

6 Birch, p.l7.

8

is it "representation" if he does only their will

and leaves no place to exercise his own political

wisdom and judgment? Therefore, it is apparent that

at this point, it is necessary to examine each view

separately.

The Delegate theory binds the representative

to the will of his constituents. If elected, he will

do their will. There is no clash of wills. Both

James Madison and John Locke felt that the legislator

must identify with the interests of his constituents.

For example, Locke saw the legislators as "bound agents"

who carry out the goals of the people. Representation

is performed when those who are elected let the wills

of the constituents be known in the legislative process. 7

This view may, at first, have the legislator

appearing to be a puppet---his duty is to merely relay

the wishes of those he represents. However, this

is not the case, because most issues have no real

majority opinion. Some issues have no support or

opposition, and opinions on views on many issues are

not definite amongst the constituents.

The representative who upholds this belief does

7 French, pp.7,8.

9

not run into the reelection problems that harass an

official who favors the Trusteeship theory. Being

bound to the views of the represented, the public

official demonstrates either the subordination of

his will to the majority will, or the fact that his

will simply agrees with that of the majority. It

is difficult for the people to give power to persons

they feel are self-serving, or to people they think

will follow policies at odds with their own views.B

Constituents see the need for their representatives

to be committed to their interests. As they recognize,

public policy that benefits the majority is the best.

Policy makers who have records of voting against the

desires of those they represent are often viewed as

self-serving. Joel Fleishman remarks in his keynote

address for a conference at the University of Virginia,

"To the extent that the self-interest of public officials

asserts iself against the public good, to that extent,

the public trust is violated."9 Self-interest, even

the slightest semblance of it, can greatly damage

8 Joel L. Fleishman, keynote address, "The Pursuit of Self Interest for the Public Good: An Ethical Paradox of Representative Democracy," Ethics and Government (Washington, D.C.: The Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation), June 1982, p.27.

9 Fleishman, p.27.

10

and often end the career ambitions of a politician.

Therefore, it is evidenced that, for representatives

who take the view of the Delegate theorists, reelection

is much easier. Since the majority usually want what

they believe is for the common good, they assume any

official who votes their way is also devoted to the

common good and is not merely self-interested.

This viewpoint, the Trusteeship theorists are

quick to point out, does have flaws. Public oficials

do not appear to take on any responsibility. They

merely juggle numbers to figure out what issues the

majority of the people in the district support. The

official may also place a much too high emphasis on

getting reelected. Being able to discern issues and

to decide what is right or best for his constituents

does not have to be an important consideration for

the Delegate-type official. This can be considered

a moral wrong.

A second criticism is that government is (or

should be) a matter of reason and judgment, not inclin­

ation. It can be reasoned that a group of citizens

located miles from the deliberations, hearings, and

discussions should not be making the final decisions

11

12

in the formation of public policies.lO

Both France, after 1789, and England, after 1832,

supported the idea of the Trusteeship relationship

in the legislative assembly.ll Thomas Hobbes and

Edmund Burke were also advocates of the contract or

trusteeship idea in which the legislator, having been

given the authority, acts in the name 12 of another.

It was important to both of these men that the legislator

not be robbed of his judgment. This viewpoint, however,

would not lead to tyranny or unrestrained power of

those elected. These elected officials do indeed

see the need to represent the constituents. There

is a protection in their ability, or their inability,

to be reelected·.

Many feel that legislators can only be truly

representative if they have the power to decide issues

for others. Public officials are usually in a better

position to research and to be informed on issues.

Each representative has a large support staff researching

bills, and lobbyists are always eager to speak on

their various issues. Thus, the official is more

10 11

French, p.l2.

12Birch, p.60. Hanna Fenichel P_itkin, ed .• , Representation (New

York: Atherton Press, 1969), p.l.

knowledgeable on the specific happenings at the legislature

than the majority of his constituents. Most of those

he represents know very little about the issues and

only a few even care. It is his duty, because of

his superior knowledge, to vote the way he feels most

appropriate for his constituents. He is negligent

if he does not exert his own judgment. Edmund Burke

states, "Your representative owes you not his industry

only but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of

serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."13

This does not mean that the representative should

not hear or even seriously consider the feelings,

desires, and needs of those he represents.· Using

his "unbiased opinion", "mature judgment"; and "enlight­

ened conscience", 14 the representative should be true

to his own rational judgment as well as listening

to his constituents. He should consult them at times

he deems necessary, but should never feel compelled

to obey them.

The check on the legislator is in the reelection

process, because the representative who sees no special

obligation or role to be truly loyal to those he repre-

13Edmund Burke, MA Representative's Duty to Constit­uen~s1~ New York Times, 18 Oct. 1984, p.27.

· Burke, p.A27.

13

sents, will most likely not be reelected. The repre­

sentative is accountable for his actions. The consequences

of his actions affect others, and he must put the

good of the whole above the good of the individuals.

To earn the trust of those who elect him, he must,

in the majority of instances, well serve the greatest

number of people. In doing so, he will earn their

trust to make policy and to exercise his own discretion.

Constituents will sacrifice self-interest if they

see it necessary and beneficial for the larger good.l5

In comparing the two theories, it becomes apparent

that the Trusteeship view is the better moral choice

for the representative. The Delegate belief is plagued

with ethical questions and difficulties that can not

be as easily answered as its counterpart. It is not

correct to assume that the representative who adheres

to the Trusteeship theory will always make the decisions

in a more ethically responsible manner, but the moral

problems and dilemmas are more easily resolved.

The Delegate theory may encourage officials to

ignore their own personal judgment and wisdom in order

to vote for the majority will. This can be seen as

a compromising of beliefs for an easier chance of

15Fleishman, p.27.

14

being reelected. The representative should never

deny his own beliefs.

It is also evident that the Delegate view robs

the legislator of his own judgment. This belief would

require the representative to choose the side of his

constituents if there was any disagreement between

himself and them.16 The will of the representative

is limited. As Peter French notes in "Burking A Mill,"

"It makes his rationality subservient to the 'collective

will of the majority of his constituents."17 An

elected official should not be a mere balancer of

interests. It is unethical to ask a representative

to ignore or neglect his own judgments, convictions,

viewpoints, and moral understandings in order to follow

the will of the majority of the constituents.

The Delegate theorist must explain why he, who

is better informed, has better access to information,

and who can provide information on specific issues,

would ignore his own feelings and views. It is indeed

true that the represented should not be ignored in

the legislative processes, but representation must

allow for the insertion of the feelings of the elected.

16Norman Bowie, (Philr~elphia: Temple

French, p.6.

ed., Ethical Issues in Government Univ~rsity Press, 1981), p.lOO.

15

Edmund Burke was adament in his belief that the

legislature was not a group of separate interests.l8

Instead, it was a political body that worked together

for one total good and the general well being of all.l9

The desires of individuals and their districts may

not necessarily be as important as the needs of the

whole nation.

The Delegate theorist faces the complex problem

of figuring out the desires of his district. How

is this done? A problem arises when a loud minority

raises a commotion concerning an issue. Could the

legislator mistake that for the will of the majority?

Or worse, the delegate may succumb, from fear, to

their wishes. A good example is Delegate Mary Sue

Terry who, during the 1985 Virginia General Assembly,

voted for an abortion bill that she did not in fact

support. A small group of verbal citizens, who could

perhaps be damaging to her aspirations of holding

a higher political office, caused enough of a stir

to change her mind. Is that appropriate? It is neither

appropriate nor ethical. The delegate overlooked

what may have been the true wishes of the majority

18 19Burke, p.27.

Burke, p.27.

16

of constituents (which is the requirement of the Delegate

Theory), and even worse than that, she neglected her

own opinion. Delegate Mary Sue Terry~s choice is

not justifiable. 20

The Delegate theorist would note that the Trusteeship

view may also allow representatives to be too concerned

with getting reelected. Knowing more about issues,

the elected official may turn from what is best for

his constituents in order to gain funds for his campaign.

The representative may vote for wealthy friends and

business interests that can be very helpful (or even

harmful) during elections. Thus, the legislator exerts

his independent judgment, based on superior knowledge,

not for the good of the majority, but for what is

most advantageous for his political aspirations.

The other criticism of the Trusteeship Theory

deals with the representative seeing the public as

ignorant and not understanding. Too little credit

about political concerns and legislative processes

is given to the represented. As Hobbes wisely noted,

"The one man acts, and the other bears responsibility

20 1 served as a legislative intern during the 1985 Session of the Virginia General Assembly. dents described in this paper which Virginia Assembly are from my experiences in that capacity.

Most inci­relate to the while serving

17

18

for the consequences as if he had acted himself." 21

The good of the whole is important, true, but the

legislator must not overlook the desires of the repre-

sented, claiming their wishes as unsound or faulty,

in such a way as to imply that the people represented

do not know, or do not wan t , what i s best for

all.

These two criticisms can be responded to and

perhaps even answered. The first judgment is a problem

that afflicts both theories. Both theorists see

the problem of reelection as a major obstacle in good

representation. The Delegate theorist can, however,

bypass the problem, because it his belief that

the representative votes the will of his constituents,

and will thus not have any reelection problems. By

satisfying the majority of citizens, he can gain their

support at the polls. The intent of the Trusteeship

view is to allow room for both viewpoints; the representa-

tives and the represented. The Delegate theorist

is blatantly doing what he may accuse the Trusteeship

theorist of trying to do every once-in-awhile. It

is a true representative who is not intimidated by

the will of the majority, but who allows room for

2lp. k. 8 1t 1n, p ••

his own opinions.

The second criticism can also be dealt with by

first stating that there are many (the majority of)

constituents who know little or nothing about politics

or the governmental processes. Every constituent

is not interested in every issue or even concerned

with a large majority of the issues. It would be

more accurate to state that most constituents are

only concerned with a

affect them directly.

for a representative who

very few issues that usually

That is why there is a need

can investigate all of the

issues, incorporate the views of the interested con­

stituents, and make a sound judgment based on both.

The area of politics is broad and must be viewed on

a large, varied scale. Constituents can only see

bits and pieces of the whole picture. It is the duty

of the elected official to consider all of the legislative

topics and to base decisions and votes on his total

comprehension of the system. The representative does

not claim the public as ignorant and removed from

the process, but it is his duty to view all of the

legislative happenings.

The wishes and desires of the constituents must

be a primary concern of the legislator. It is easy

19

to overlook the public and to view them as ignorant,

not understanding and uninterested. However, they

are the ones who elect the officials, and to whom

the official is accountable. Nevertheless, the repre­

sentative who holds to the Trusteeship view would

never ignore the constituents entirely. He would,

in fact, seek their opinions, and follow their opinion

when appropriate. It 'is onlp in times of disagreement

between the two wills that the representative must

vote his way.

In conclusion, the Trusteeship theory is far

superior to that of the Delegate theory. By comparsion

with his constituents, the representative is better

informed, has superior political wisdom, and has easier

access to information concerning issues. It is also

unlikely that he would be reelected if he anly voted

his own best judgment without ever considering the

opinions of his constituents. The repres'en tat i ve

should never make his will subservient to that of

his district. Government is a matter of judgment,

not will. Joel Fleishman made a very observant•comment

in his keynote address referred to above. He stated,

"The greatest public leaders of all time are those

who brought the public· to accept their point of view,

20

who did not reflect public opinion, but moulded it." 22

Representation is not the mere substitute theory in

which elected officials collect numbers of constituents

favoring and opposing issues. It involves not only

the desire to know the constituents, and to consider

their opinions, views, goals, but also to combine

political wisdom and experience in order to truly

be a »representative."

22Fleishman, p.33.

21

22

CHAPTER 2 A MORAL DILEMMA:

THE PROBLEM OF DIRTY HANDS

Several ethical questions arise when one looks

at the sometimes dubious things political leaders

believe they have to do. For example: Is the political

figure, by his holding of public office, under a different

set of ethical or moral standards than a mere citizen?

Is he, perhaps, able to commit, perform, or order

certain actions that, if done by a non-public citizen,

would be questionable or perhaps even unethical?

Finally, is he given more ethical freedom than ordinary

persons?

These questions demonstrate the necessity of

discussing a concept called "dirty hands." This concept

deals with the moral dilemma of whether anyone who

is politically involved can commit some morally "unclean"

deed and whether he can or must be held responsible

for committing that act. The term, dirty hands, can

find its origin in Jean Paul Sartre's, No Exit and

Three Other Plays. The character Hoerderer is noted

as saying, "I have dirty hands right up to the elbows,

I/ve plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think

you can govern innocently?"23

There are various ways to examine this topic.

It is important to decide if, for example, a politician

can be held to a different standard than others, and

if so, how much responsibilty he should assume. The

utilitarian (consequentialist) viewpoint as well as

the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs of Niccolo Machiavelli,

Max Weber, and Albert Camus can offer a variety of

options and justifications in dealing with this topic.

"Dirty hands" is not an unusual phenomenon to

politics. In fact, it is quite necessary if a politician

desires to be successful. Machiavelli believed that

it was not easy for a representative to keep his hands

clean. However, the performing of unethical acts

may in fact be the best way to represent the constituents

and to bring them what they want. The politician

who does the most beneficial thing for those he represents

will stay in power. The performance of the immoral

actions will be overshadowed by the results and the

23Jean Paul Sartre, "Dirty Hands" in No Exit and Three Other Plays, trans. Lionel Abel (New York, n.d.), p.224, as quoted in Michael Walzer, "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands," Philosophy and Public 'Affairs (1973-74), p.l61.

23

subsequent success of the representative.

In the Foreword of Personal Values in Public

Policy, Senator Charles Mac. Mathais states, "It is

both my opinion and my experience that most people

in the political world want to do ~the right thing/

to the extent that they have the light to recognize

what is right." 24 Unfortunately, it is difficult

to decide what is right and moral. Values can be

both objective-and subjective. 25 They can be imposed

on us by parents, friends, and even the law, but values

can also be quite personal. Thus, a conflict arises

when a decision has to be made as to which values

or morals should be striven for and pursued. What

may be acceptable in the eyes of a politician may

not be acceptable to the represented, and what may

not be acceptable to a politician may be considered

so by the constituents. Thus, now comes the question

(dilemma) of whether a politician is permitted to

perform acts that are considered to be unethical if

performed by one of his constituents? It is interesting

to note Ray Price~s statement that opposes that of

Mathais. He told interviewer Philip Nobile that,

24John C. Haughty, Personal Values in Public Policy (New ~grk: Paulist Press, 1979), p.l.

Haughty, p.45.

24

"Nobody gets into the White House without being a

devious politician to some extent. Maneuvering and

manipulation is part of the president~s job. A saint

would be a disastrous president."26 It is apparent

that various ideas of the role and duty of a politician

are difficult to define and to explain.

Nevertheless, the politician is indeed different

from those he represents. He is given the responsibility

of representing his constituents' beliefs, desires,

and objectives. He acts for them. Given this duty,

the representative has greater responsibility than

most others. He is faced with making decisions and

choices that are beyond our imagination. The high

official~s choices of action affect many people.

For example, he has the power to tax, to impose laws,

and to, perhaps, even decide to send his nation to

war.

The need to dirty one's hands is evident when

an unethical deed must be performed in order that

the citizens are kept safe, secure, and represented

in the best fashion possible. A good example of a

politician dirtying his hands concerns an official

26Philip Nobile, "With Nixon,!' Richmond Times­Dispatch, 4 Dec. 1977.

25

who must lie to his constituents concerning a top

secret military mission. It is to the benefit, well

being, and best interest of the district and the nation

if he lies. The act of lying is unethical. Lying

is deceptive and should not be promoted or encouraged,

especially by the very people who are held in high

esteem. However, certain deceptive acts often must

be committed. The politician is given greater powers

than those of ordinary citizens. His decision to

lie may have prevented an enemy attack or may have

kept a vita! misssi!e needed for protection from being

placed in a vulnerable location. The lie is thus

acceptable and may no longer be considered unethical.

The greater power of a representative may be

used as it is purposed, to benefit the represented.

However, politicians often rule over and manipulate

the constituents. The elected official has a lot

at stake for himself in the holding of office. Michael

Walzer in 11 Political Action: The Problem .of Dirty

Hands," phrased it nicely when he said, "Indeed, he

cannot serve us without serving himself, for success

brings him power and glory, the greatest rewards that

men can win from their fellows."27

27 Walzer, p.l63.

26

Nonetheless, many politicians allow themselves

to perform unethical deeds, because they claim that

they would be letting down those they represent if

they did not get their hands dirty. Often, representatives

~ do something that is objectionable as seen from

the eyes of those they represent. Politicians may

fall under a different morality than the public.

This would be a type of governmental morality that

would stem from the morality of the policy makers.28

An act may be the best choice, but seen in itself,

morally wrong. Thus, when the politician commits

the act, he is not quite as guilty as if it had been

committed by an ordinary citizen.

The dirty hands dilemma always arises for a poli-

tician. Being under a different standard and level

of responsibility from those he represents, the politician

will, at some point be faced with performing an "unethical

deed" that must be done in order that those he represents

are best served. It must be noted that a politician

may choose not to dirty his hands, but he must get

his hands dirty if he wants to succeed. If he stays

clean, he may not be (probably is not) doing the best

28Peter A. Fre~~h, Eth1cs in Government (Englewood Cliffs, New. Jersey: ~rentice Hall, Inc., 1983), pp.16,l7.

27

thing, and if he is elected to represent his people,

and to do a truly good job, then he has failed.

The utilitarian can justify the politician~s

dirtying his hands, because the ends can justify the

means. Utilitarians require that the representative

look at the choices, alternatives, and various available

options before a decision is made. 29 The alternatives

must be weighed and the consequences must be examined.

If the politician performs an unethical act, believing

in good faith that he is doing the right thing (the

thing which will have the best, or least bad consequences),

then that act is acceptable.

Walzer can agree with the utilitarian view that

the alternatives may lead a politician to perform

an unethical deed. He would not, however, accept

merely the guilt, remorse, and regret of the repre-

sentative for the act. Instead, he would require

a punishment that would equal the crime.3°

Thro~gh the perspectives of three philosophers,

Walzer presents three ways of dealing with and explaining

dirty hand~. The first is Machiavelli. This view

would permit an immoral act and would even allow it

29 30

Walzer, pp.l68,169. Walzer, p.l73.

28

to be totally justifiab1e. 31 It is often necessary

to do unethical things in order to best serve the

country and the people. Machiavelli can justify the

act because it promotes the fame and glory of the

leader which he considers to be fine. Like the utili­

tarians, the ends do justify the means. There-

fore, if it is the best thing, then the act had to

be committed. This line of thinking then follows

to say that if the act was best, then it is not really

wrong. If the act is not really wrong (and thus not

immoral), there is no reason to feel guilty.

Neither Walzer nor I can accept this line of

reasoning, a line of reasoning he associates with

a pagan type religion. This view would allow a politician

to perform an act, but to pretend that he has clean

hands. There must be some grieving and some feelings

of guilt. Feeling good about the act does not automat­

ically clean one/s hands of the action. Problems

arise when a politician can excuse an immoral deed

by merely exclaiming that the results cover up any

misdoings in the middle.

inhumane, insensitive,

This theory could lead to

and destructive tendencies

on the part of the policy maker. Some feelings of

31 Walzer, pp.l73-l78.

29

remorse must be evident.

This leads to the second view that Walzer examines.

It can be seen in Max Weber's "Politics as a Vocation."

The politician would be considered a tragic hero.32

This type of man is alone. He does what he must in

order to best serve those he represents, but he suffers.

Unlike Machiavelli, who can allow the politician to

become fully free from the act, this character feels

the guilt.

The politician realizes that he has done something

that is truly unethical, an act that could perhaps

not otherwise have been permitted. Thus, there must

be a sense of realization that the act did occur,

and the politician must subsequently have feelings

of being the cause and the performer. The problem

is resolved by the conscience. It is through his

grief, anguish, and total hopelessness for having

performed the act that the politician can be forgiven.

I can readily accept the personal sense of guilt

as enough to free a politician from the corrupt act.

This view is representative of the Protestant religion.

The grace of God would free the politician from his

guilt feelings. His grief would be ended by God's

32 Walzer, p.l76.

30

grace. The politician has accepted the responsibility

for the act as evidenced by his inner feelings of

blameworthiness.

Unfortunately, that is not enough guilt for Walzer.

Unlike myself, Walzer sees the need for the punishment

to be social.33 In his opinion, the punishment must

be both visible and equal to the action. That is

the only way to demor.-::.trate that certain ways of behaving

are just not acceptable. This point is made clear

in the last view Walzer presents.

The final view is expressed by Albert CamusJ,

The Just Assassins. These men (assassins) do their

job and die. 34 The punishment must equal the crime.

If a wrongful act has been performed, then there must

be suffering for this wrong. At this point, Walzer

and I depart. He follows CamusJ Catholic type view.

Walzer states, "I am inclined to think CamusJ view

the most attractive of the three, if only because

it requires us at least to imagir•e a punishment or

a penance that fits the crime and so to examine closely

the nature of the cr:ir11e. "35 The politician has performed

the act, thus, he must bear the burden and the punishment

33 34walzer, pp.l73-178.

35walzer, p.l78. Walzer, p.179.

31

for his actions.

1 find Walzer's views almost ruthless. The act

may be unethical, but it is done to serve the country

and the people. Thus, it is not under the same high

standards as other acts performed by common people,

but it does need to be dealt with in a humane fashion.

An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is too extreme

for my tastes. It seems to me that Walzer greatly

underestimates the punishment that one can feel intern­

ally. A personal way of dealing with the problem

can be very effective. The wrong does not have to

be paraded in front of all and punished in the same

way. I find enough punishment within an individual's

conscience. God's forgiveness and grace also seems

to be neglected in what Walzer has to say. The Lord

knows that men sin and do wrong, but he offers forgive­

ness. He does not ask men to take on the burden of

their misdoings. Walzer even states, " ••. one's hands

get dirty from doing what is wrong to do. And how

can it be wrong to do what is right? Or how can we

get our hands dirty by doing what w~ ought to do?" 36

I find it difficult to believe that he can admit the

need for dirty hands and even accept it, but that

36 Walzer, p.l64.

32

he requires such a harsh punishment. The man is somewhat

inconsistent in his analysis.

To c~nclude, it

perhaps answer the

is necessary to look back and

questions that were posed at the

answer to all three beginning of this section. My

questions would be "yes." The politician is under

a different moral standard from that of his constituents.

He exercises considerable power and judgment, and

his decisions affect a great variety of people in

very significant ways. Many decisions on this higher

level can best serve the people if and only if they

involve some type of immoral or unethical activity.

Thus, the politician must be given more ethical freedom

than those he represents.

The politician can neither successfully serve

his people nor himself if he does not get his hands

dirty. It is an inevitable part of politics. To

be successful the representative must serve the needs

of those he represents, and if that requires perhaps

immoral deeds (there will always be some dirty hands

activity) then he is forced to commit them if he wants

to stay in office, and if

duties of the office.

he wants to carry out the

Thus, there must be a time

when every official gets his hands dirty. Refusal

33

to do so will certainly lead to losing the office

and position. But more importantly, it may lead to

a default on the official~s duty to advance the public

interest or common good.

The utilitarians as well as Machiavelli, can

justify dirty hands because the end justifies the

means. If the final outcome is the best alternative,

then it is the only correct choice. However, these

viewpoints seem to let the politician off just a little

too easily. There must be some recognition that a

wrongful act has been committed.

I can accept the personal feelings of guilt as

enough realization of having performed an unethical

deed. Unfortunately, Walzer requires a punishment

equal to the action. That seems a bit harsh condsider­

ing that he too realizes that dirty hands are inevitable,

and often the best choice.

34

CHAPTER 3 OTHER MORAL DILEMMAS:

PARTY, MONEY, MEDIA

There are a variety of specific issues that a

politician must confront as he serves his district.

Moral dilemmas will inevitably arise and ethical decisions

must be made. In this chapter, I will deal with three

different, but very controversial topics: party, money,

and media. Each, in its own way, challenges the public

figure and forces him to define what he feels to be

the true role of the representative.

PARTY

An ethical question can arise concerning the

loyalty of an elected official to his party. Sometimes

the judgment of the representative is overlooked because

certain party policies must be followed. There is

a question concerning whether there is a need to stick

with the party which helps get one elected, and offers

other advantages, or whether it is more important

to vote one~s own convictions.

35

To be sure, there is some ethical obligation

as well as some political temptation for the elected

official to follow the views of his political party.

Parties represent sufficient breadth of concerns that

policies can be formulated on which many people may

more or less agree, and governmental decisions can

be reached and carried out. Thus, some degree of

party cohesion and party loyalty, though not absolutes,

are often believed to be integral to governmental

effectiveness. Unity is necessary if the group is

to make great strides in the political arena, to achieve

certain high ranking positions for its members, or

to get certain legislation passed. A politician usually

adheres to a particular party because he agrees with

their views on specific issues. Therefore, in the

majority of instances, his will and the will of the

party are similar if not identical. Team-playing

is a necessary element in the governmental process.

The views of a p~rticular party may, at some

point, be in direct contrast to the personal judgment

of the representative. For example, party policies

may not be in line with the true needs of specific

districts. They may speak instead for the country

as a whole, or· even for larger interests. What is

36

"best for the whole" may not be best for the small

areas. Or, a representative may disa9ree with a party

stand on a certain important issue such as the economy.

Paul Simon notes, "Every le9islator occasionally stru99les

to determine at what point you are disloyal to yourself

when you are loyal to the party."37 It is wron9 for

an individual to be swayed by the party into a compro-

misin9 of his beliefs. Party jud9ments are not always

the best for everyone.

There are various reasons why a representative

would feel compelled to follow the desires of a party.

Most of the presti9ious positions and committee chair-

manships are 9iven to party members. This is apparent

in the hi9hly Democratic General Assembly of Vir9inia.

The Democrats are in control, by considerable numbers,

thus holdi n9 all of the committee chairmanships and

virtually all of the highly coveted positions from

Appropriations and Finance Committee chairmanships

to Speaker of the House. One must prove himself faithful

to the party in order to gain the respect of the 9roup.

This is how one gets to be a leader. In order to

be successful, within most 9overnmental or9anizations,

37Paul Simon, The Glass House (New York: Continum Press, 1984), p.l03.

37

the representative must be known as a party supporter.

It would sometimes be more advantageous for a legislator

to vote with the party than to vote for his constituents,

and it is not unusual to

follow party stands more

district. The punishment

see ambitious legislators

than the true needs of their

for not staying with the

party can be harsh-- no good committee assign-

ments.38 The benefits of good committee positions

and leadership roles are very tempting.

The party idea may, in theory, sound like a good

idea. It is probably the best way for our legislatures

to be run. However, there seems to be a strong difference

between theory and reality •. Certain states, such

as Virginia and Georgia; are primarily Democratic.

One must be in the majority party in order to promote

one/s political career or simply to be effective as

a former of public

political aspirants

Party despite their

also leads to the

policy. This may force certain

to register with the Democratic

true ideological be~iefs. This

complete disregard for the true

purpose of a two-party system. The system works best

if the two parties are within comparable power positions

so that some type of bargaining, in order to achieve

38simon, p.101.

38

the best public policy, is compromised between the

two.

Another problem is the weakening influence of

the parties on how people vote. Some people do use

party as a cue to voting, but for the most part, the

role of the party is declining. No longer are certain

parties associated with specific views on issues and

legislation.39

There are virtues to being the dominant party.

The party gets all of the major chairmanships and

prestigious positions. However, that may not be the

best thing for the represented. There really needs

to be a balance between the parties. If one party

becomes too powerful, the one party gets its way all

of the time, and the other becomes stagnant.

Nevertheless, political parties do have certain

good functions, and it may not always be necessary

for the politician to be faced with a decision between

his beliefs and those of the party. Dr. John Whelan,

Chairman of the University of Richmond Political Science

Department, does not see " .•. too many situations where

the representative must make a fundamental compromise."

39This information is based upon an interview with Dr. John Whelan, Chairman of the University of Richmond Political Science Department, in April 1985.

39

He does not feel that the party would put a representative

in a position in which a choice had to be made. The

party would not try to alienate its members in that

fashion. Paul Simon has noted, along with the influence

of parties on voting behavior, a trend toward the

responsibility of the representative, not the party.40

Perhaps the elected ,officials are beginning to see

the need to truly "represent" the people, even if

that contradicts party policy.

Dr. Robison James, Professor of Religion at the

University of Richmond, sees an ethical ambiguity

in the role of political parties. 41 Because the parties

offer the representative advantages, they tempt him

to follow the will of the party despite his best judgment.

Yet the parties~ importance in the governmental process

also means his party obligates him, as well. The

true ethical obligation of the public official is

to follow the policies and legislation of his party,

but only up to the point where there is no conflict

with his own moral reasoning. The duty to the party

is overridden. Party loyalty is key to governmental

:~Simon, p.lOO. This information is based upon my interaction

with Dr. Robison James as I worked on my thesis from September 1984 to April 1985.

40

effectiveness and it is a needed element in U.S.

government. However, the temptation to merely adhere

to party policies without regard to the true needs

of specific districts is

to the personal beliefs

in close calls, where it

wrong. The moral duty is

of the representative, unless

would be the most ethical

choice to listen to the will of the party.

41

MONEY

The concern for money in politics has existed

since our very first elected official, and it is of

considerable importance to us today. Problems such

as bribes may still be found in the political arena,

but have been overshadowed by more prevalent concerns

such as campaigning expenses and salaries. 42 The

costs of obtaining a political office have increased

and subtle pressures to favor the opinions of contributors

have intensified the money dilemma and have raised

questions about political ethics.

No public official obtains an office without

paying a price, and a very high price at that. Races

for seats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

often surpass the million dollar mark, and it is not

uncommon for state representatives to spend hundreds

of thousands of dollars to get elected.43

House (New York:Continum 42Paul Simon, The Glass Press 1984), p.34.

43 see Michael Barone, et al., The Almanac of American Politics 1984 (Washington, D.C.: National Journal, 1984), and Paul Simon, The Glass House (New York: Continum Press,-1984), p.35.

42

Election costs have greatly increased in recent

years. Even incumbents are finding it necessary to

raise great sums of money in order to hold onto a

seat. Growing areas of communication such as the

radio and television have caused campaigns to need

seemingly unlimited amounts of contributions to be

successful. Mass mailings, telephone solicitations,

polls, and even

very extensive and

door-to-door compaigning can be .both

44 very costly. Staffs have also

grown in size and the number of people required to

win (or even run) an election have greatly increased.

Much of the money donated to campaigns in recent

years has been controlled by Political Action Committees

(PACs). These have entailed huge sums being donated

to specific candidates especially by corporations,

interest groups, and rich friends. Unfortunately,

problems have arisen concerning PACs that have caused

them to be supported by some and opposed by others.

Larry Sabato gives three reasons in support of

Political Action Committees. The first is that they

protect our right to freedom of speech. PAC money

is an expression of particular interests, views, and

philosophies. The second reason is that PAC money

44simon, p.39.

43

does not really influence the way the representatives

vote. Elected officials enjoy, and even seek, PAC

contributions, but they do not always feel compelled

to support interest groups. The final reason that

Sabato gives is that the PAC system of dealing with

campaign contributions is better than most of the

others that have been proposed. 45

A study done by The Richmond Times- Dispatch

in 1983, however, does find a correlation between

PAC money and votes. 46 The finding was that 79 percent

of those receiving money voted for the special interest

groups as opposed to only 59 percent of those not

getting money. Nevertheless, the relationship may

not be one of cause and effect. The ~oney may go

to those who are naturally more sympathetic to the

needs of interest groups.

Certain changes in the handling of PAC money

may help. Perhaps, there should be more incentives

such as tax breaks to those who donate to a party

rather than to individuals. That would give the candidates

a larger pool of money, so they would not be as dependent

45Larry Sabato, "PAC's: Should Something Be Done About 4~hem?" The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 28 Oct. 1984.

Ray McAllister and Mike Grim, "PACs' Aid Correlates with Votes in Assembly," The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 18 Nov. 1984.

44

on Political Action Committees. It would also increase

the power of parties that can then be used as a count­

erweight to PAC influence. There should also be forced

disclosures (which do not have loopholes) of how the

money was spent

Large sums of money are still needed to win an

election, no matter how that money is received. Thus,

anyone who contributes considerable amounts of money

to a campaign will receive much gratitude from the

candidate. In return, the contributor receives better

access to his representative and therefore a greater

chance of being heard on specific issues.

A representative's time is indeed limited. There

are numerous committee assignments, sessions, press

conferences, receptions, and other appearances that

make demands on a politician's time. Therefore, there

is not a lot of time that can be spared for the constitu­

ents. If a member of the public calls, then it is

usually handled by an aide. It is at this point that

contributors gain the advantage over other constituents.

As Paul Simon notes in, The Glass House, "There may

be some members of Congress who vote for or against

a bill specifically because of a campaign contribution,

but the much commoner. problem is that campaign contributors

45

have greater access to policy makers, and access spells

votes."47

Many political officials are easily influenced

by their contributors while others are not. Ethically,

a public figure should return no voting favors for

contributions. An explicit agreement would be considered

a bribe which is unlawful. The representative is

supposedly r=n'ore f ami 1 i ar with ·•the issues and the legis-

lative process. It would not be morally wrong, and

it may in fact be of great help, for a contributor

to present his views to his delegate, but there should

be no obligation for the representative to favor those

views. It is the duty of the elected official to

seek the other side of a piece of legislation also

and then vote as an informed person. Representatives

often vote contrary to the will of the contributors,

and many do not lose the financial support.48

However, it would be correct to state that on

"close calls" where the representative does not believe

a piece of legislation may be of major importance,

those who have the greatest access will have their

desires supported. 49 The financial need to get elected

478 . 48 ~mon,

49s~mon, S1mon,

p.35. p.36 p.35.

46

is of utmost importance to the candidates and the

contributor is thus rewarded by votes on certain

issues.

A final problem with the expense of running a

campaign is that too much time may be spent on raising

funds. That may take the representative~s energies

and attention away from the true needs of his constitu­

ents. Paul Simon remarks, "Since the candidate who

spends the most money generally. wins, there are far

too many candidates shaping their views to meet the

financial needs of a campaign, rather than the actual

needs of the country." 50 Perhaps a limit on the amount

of money spent on campaigns can eliminate this problem.

Politicians as well as the public must realize that

the primary purpose is that of representation--not

the election battle. Limits, such as ceilings on

PACs, plus more strict limits on total campaign spending

may help campaigns from becoming astronomically expensive.

Another area of concern is that of the salaries

of elected officials. The costs of being a representative

can also be quite large following the election. For

example, most have to keep two homes and transportation

can also become costly. Many representatives, especially

50 simon, p.39.

47

at the state level, can make money in other fields,

but other office holders may even lose more money

having to "close shop" for the duration of the legislature,

or having to be absent from their jobs. 51 It is not

uncommon for good, qualified representatives to leave

office for financial reasons. Quality is often

compromised for those who are willing or who can afford

to live on limited salaries. Thus, it may be the

most ethical choice to allow pay raises. Quality

may need to be attracted otherwise.

Most constituents do not approve of the pay increases

that the representatives allow for themselves. They

view the increases as tax money going to the greedy

government officials. However, the increased salaries

may be very necessary for good representation. If

there were no salary increases, then only the rich

would truly be running the legislatures. At this

point, PACs would be of great help to the poorer

candidates. The PAC money would serve to balance

the personal donations of wealthy candidates although,

as noted already, other problems may arise.

There should be no ethical problem with the raising

of salaries by the representatives. The money may

51 simon, p.46.

48

be needed to entice the best people to be interested

in servin9 their district, or in order not to deter

the more promising people who may not want to have

a reduced standard of livin9. The cost of running

a campaign is expensive enough, so the winner should

not then have to be faced with the problem of being

unable to afford to remain in office.

Money can raise certain moral questions for 90Vern­

mental officials. Contributions for campaigns are

becoming even more necessary in today~s society where

costs can force a candidate to pay thousands of dollars

just to get elected. After the election has been

won, the representative is then faced with two more

additional problems. He must first realize that campaign

contributions should not mean special voting favors

and visitin9 rights that are denied to the common

citizen. The representative must also realize that

it is all right, and even the most ethical choice

if pay increases are allowed. Often the general public

finds it hard to accept certain monetary needs of

the representatives, especially raises in salaries.

However, the constituents must realize that often

the best representatives must be enticed into holding

office.

49

MEDIA

Constituents may play second fiddle to those

who donate considerable sums of money to campaigns,

but they are also placed second in importance to the

media. It is the media (radio, television, newspaper)

attention that can help or hurt a public official.

The media portray the image of the representative

as well as upplaying and downplaying certain pieces

of legislation and various issues. 52 In today/s society,

where the elected official is responsible for such

large numbers of people, there is no way one could

attempt to meet even a small percentage of the citizens.

Thus,· the voters often choose· carididates who they

frequently read about, watch on television, or hear

mentioned on the radio. Media attention can gain

votes, and it can also be of great help once the official

is in office. Citizens like to see their representatives

being followed by the press, not only so they can . follow important bills and activities, but also so

they can be assured that there is a "watchdog" keeping

5 2Paul Simon~ The Glass House (New York: Continum Press, 1984), p.ll9.

50

a check on all of the representative~s activities.

Therefore, it is not surprising that there is usually

an unspoken policy in every public official~s office---the

media get priority. 53

There are two major ethical problems that arise

when the relationship between the elected official

and the media is examined. The first is the importance

that the representative places on the need to gain

media exposure. The second is the way in which the

official goes about seeking this attention. Unimportant

issues and trivial items often get much more exposure

than issues of real substance and concern. However,

the problem may be attributable to the media. It

is the media that needs the "eye catching" news stories

in order to grab readers and to remain competitive

with the other sources of communication.

Paul Simon accurately remarks, "Reporters, pressed

for time, are attracted to the obvious, to the easy

story that is more likely to b~ read than a story

that will inform."54 Citizens are not being shown.

the true inner workings of the legislature, and they

are not always being kept informed on major issues.

53simon, p.119. 54simon, p.l21.

51

It is also important to stress the main objectives

of the media: to sell the paper, to get viewers, or

to win the most listeners. The newspaper, radio,

and television are all interested in making a profit

in order to stay in business and to perhaps grow even

larger. In general, the public is more interested

in trivial items and heartwarming events than who

voted for or against a bill. Therefore, the chain

of reaction is apparent: the public, which gives its

attention and money to specific forms of communication,

prefer the more inconsequential happenings; so the

newspapers, radios, and television, in order to gain

public financial support, satisfy these demands in

order to stay in business; thus, the politician must

also gear his newsworthy actions to the media.

Senator Paul Douglas is quoted by Paul Simon

as stating, "If you want to stay in public office,

you have to get media attention ••• But the media loves

trivia. You have to do a certain amount of that to

stay alive politically."55 The hurriedness of the

legislative reporters does not allow time to be spent

on issues of great substance. Instead, attention

focuses on the

55s. 1mon,

cute, light-hearted charm of the repre-

p.l21.

52

53

sentatives and their interection. Simon gives an

example of massive numbers of reporters photographing

and filming Representative Jim Wright pushing Repre-

sentative Walter Fauntroy in a wheelbarrow in front

of the Capita!. The two had made a bet over the

Dallas/Redskins football game. 56 I can recollect

several television stations following a Senator from

the Virginia General Assembly as he left his office

and got onto the elevator. The occasion was his birthday!

Dr. John Whelan, Chairman of the Political Science

Department at the University of Richmond, would disagree

with the statement that the media and the elected

officials concentrate more on trivial news than news

that really concentrates on the issues. He agrees

that there is some trivia, and that the representatives

manipulate the media in order to gain exposure. However,

he does not see this as bad. It is, in fact, just

as necessary as the hard issues. Often, the elected

official will need the exposure, on any type of event,

in order to be heard on important legislation. Visibility

is the key to votes, as well as respectability. Citizens

who see their representative on television and hear

them on the news, will give them more credibility

56 . S1mon, p.120.

for their beliefs on issues.

Dr. Whelan also feels strongly that many reporters

and journalists do fairly and accurately cover major

issues as well as even small issues. He believes

that the media are usually objective in their coverage

and that they seek to find the truth. However, Whelan

does see room for improvement. All issues are not

covered.

It is true that the grand openings of schools,

malls, and office buildings may gain too much exposure

by the press if a public official is in attendance.

Morally and ethically speaking, the official is not

wrong even if he seeks such types of coverage. The

political figure truly needs that type of publicity.

The public enjoys seeing the human side of its repre­

sentatives, and it is of great benefit to the politician.

It is acceptable for the official to get this attention

if he uses it also to promote legislative happenings

and issues. There must be an equal balance of the

two. A politician who supplies the media with articles

that readers enjoy, will also be in a .position to

get attention for issues of substance.

The media can not be completely to blame for

the incomplet~ exposure of legislation. It is necessary,

54

55

in order to remain alive in the competitive market,

to satisfy the public. Straight coverage of issues

and bills would probably get no attention from the

public. Most papers, radios, and television programs

use a mixture of both unimportant and important happen-

ings. For example, the Richmond Times-Dispatch devotes

several pages to coverage of the Virginia General

Assembly. In the form of short briefs, many issues

are presented. These are probably read more often

than large articles, because they are short and precise.

It is necessary to note that much of the public does

not want to be informed on issues, and that the easier

it is to read the more likely that it wi11 be read

at all.

In the eyes of the active public, the media as

well as the political figures, may be somewhat compromising I

in their actions. They do what they have to instead

of what should be done. Trivial items are as important

as true news. It is true to say that many issues

are neglected. A possible answer is a 24 hour radio

program sponsored by a public service organization

which would continuously run bills and issues. Interested

citizens could tune in to hear legislation that may

be pertinant to them, but perhaps not to the rest

of the state. Another solution is an increased "Brief"

section in the newspaper for briefs.

Public pressures for media exposure on cute,

jovial topics cause the media to often deemphasize

truly necessary issues. A balance, however, may be

the best conclusion. Most citizens are unconcerned

with the majority of the legislation, and one might

a~gue that any bit of attention to the process may

be the most one can hope to achieve. The representative

is placed in a situation where he is forced to fight

for the media~s limited attention, even if for trivial

things. The attention is necessary and perhaps even

the most ethical choice.

56

CONCLUSION

The role of the representative may indeed be

difficult to define, but there are definite ethical

and moral responsibilities. A representative would

be serving his constituents in the most ethical manner

possible if he followed the Trusteeship view. It

is necessary that the elected official strive to achieve

the goals and serve the best interests of the represented,

but that he never put their will before his own con­

science. There should never be the subordination

of what the representative feels is best for his district

to the will of the majority. It is his duty to weigh

the pros and cons of issues and then, based on his

superior political knowledge, make the best choice.

The public official owes his superior wisdom

and judgment to those who elect him. It is his ethical

responsibility to serve his constituents in the best

fashion possible. The representative must never deny

his own views. However, the representative must never

neglect his district/s wishes. He must attentively

listen to them and consider their desires along with

his own. Only in cases of conflict will he do his

57

will instead of theirs.

The citizens should place a great amount of trust

in the people whom they elect. Thus, it is obviously

necessary that the duty of the representative be deter­

mined. The government officials who mould public

opinion instead of merely reflecting it, and who persuade

the constutuents to accept their point view, have

been the greatest leaders of this country~

"Dirty hands" is also an inevitable problem for

a public office holder. It can be concluded that

it is necessary for the political official to commit

certain acts that would not be acceptable if performed

by an ordinary citizen. The representative, by virtue

of holding office, will be placed in certain situations

that require morally uncertain courses of action.

However, the representative must admit to himself

that he has committed the morally questionable act.

In order to be forgiven for having committed the act,

the representative must first admit guilt. He must

also admit that the act in question would not have

been acceptable under any other situation. Admitting

the guilt would free the politician from his sin.

It would be unacceptable if the off~cial did not

ackn9wledge the morally wrong deed, or if he were

58

required to make some type of restitution equal to

the crime. The best moral selection would be the

more middle of the road choice which would allow for

a personal type of grief. The representative should

try to avoid situations where he might do wrong, but

there are times when there is no other choice. Never­

theless these cases should be limited.

The topics dealt with in Chapter

money, and the media, can, as already

3, parties,

noted, lead

to moral dilemmas for the representative. It is necessary

for the elected official to follow his party/s policies,

but only as long as he is not forced to go against

the needs of his district. As seen in Chapter l,

the role of the representative is to use his superior

political knowledge and wisdom in order to best serve

his constituents. By no means should anything interfere

with his attempts to do the most moral thing. It

is all right for the representative to follow his

party and vote with them on issues (and it may be

the most moral choice), but when the will of the

party comes in direct contrast with the needs of the

politician~s district, at that point the only ethical

choice is to go against the party.

Money dilemmas also harass the elected official

59

and stir up moral issues. Campaign expenses have

become astronomical is recent years. Thus, the candidate

must spend a great portion of his time raising funds.

60

It is acceptable to seek contributions such as from

PACs, but the representative must never feel any obligation

to give the special interest groups and wealthy friends

any more access or special voting favors than he gives

to ordinary citizens. It is morally wrong for the

representative to place the importance of any person

or group above another. On issues that he has no

particular feelings about or when he deems an issue

uncontroversia1 he can, perhaps at that point, favor

certain friends and groups.

Salary issues can also cause the elected official

a lot of grief, especially with the general public.

Pay raises for the representatives are more acceptable.

Increased salaries are often necessary in order to

attract the best people to serve in office. High

campaigning costs are only the beginning. Once in

office, the cost of maintaining two homes and leaving

one~s job can discourage even the most interested

politician who can not afford a decreased standard

of living. Salary increases may also guarantee that

the wealthy who can afford to have a decreased income

will not be the only ones who run our government.

Finally, the representative should allow some

special favors to the media. It is necessary that

the public be informed on what the legislatures are

doing. That may mean that the official has to give

the media special access rights. The representative

may also need to give the media some "trivial" type

news in order to also be heard on important issues.

Very few citizens are interested in the actual happenings

of their legislative bodies, but they do have the

right to know that the news is being followed and

reported. It is acceptable for both the media and

the representatives to give a little of both trivial

news and news of importance if that is what the public

wants.

It is the duty

in mind the true purpose

has been elected by

of the representative to keep

of his holding office. He

those he represents in order to

form policy and create laws that will help society

as a whole. Keeping this moral and ethical respon­

his main purpose, the elected sibility in mind

official should

as

subsequently not have to worry about

what is the best way to serve his district.

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barone, Michael, et al. 1984. Washingto~,

The Almanac of American Politics D.C.: National Journal, 1984.

Birch, A. H. Representation. London: Pall Mall Press Ltd., 1971.

Bok, Sisse1a. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

Bowie, Norman, ed. Ethical Issues in Government. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981.

Burke, Edmund. "A Representative's Duty to Constituents." New York Times. 18 Oct. 1984, p.A27.

Castles, Francis G., ed. The Impact of Parties. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1982.

Fleishman, Joel L. and Bruce L. Payne. Ethical Dilemmas and the Education of Po1icymakers. New York: The Hastings Center, 1980.

Fleishman, Joel L. Keynote Address, "The Pursuit of Self Interest for the Public Good: An Ethical Paradox of Representative Democracy." Ethics and Government. Washington, D.C.: The Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation, 16-19 June 1982.

French, Peter D. Ethics In Government. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice ·Hall , I n c. , 1983.

Haughty, John C., ed. Personal Values in Public Policy. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

James, Robison B. "The Ethics of Politics." University of Richmond: Unpublished manuscript, August 1984.

62

63

James, Robison B. "The Twofold Moral Foundation of Our Public Life." University of Richmond: Unpublished manuscript, August 1984.

Kavanaugh, Dennis. Political Science and Political Behavior. London: George Allen and Unwin Publishers, 1983.

McAllister, Ray and Mike Grim. "PAC"s Aid Correlates with Votes in Assembly." Richmond Times-Dispatch. 18 Nov. 1984.

Nobile, Phi 1 i p. "With Nixon." Richmond Times-Dispatch. 4 Dec. 1977.

Pennock, J. Roland. Representation. New York: Atherton Press, 1968.

Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, ed. Representation. New York: Atherton Press, 1969.

Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. The Concept of Representation. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.

Sabato, Larry. "PAC"s: Should Something Be Done About Them?" Richmond Times-Dispatch. , 28 Oct. 1984.

Simon, Paul. The Glass House. Press, 1984.

Srisang, Koson. Washington, 1983.

Perspectives on D.C.: Georgetown

New York: Continum

Political Ethics. University Press,

Walzer, Michael. "Political Action: The Problem of D i r t y Hands • " .:..P.:...h:..:i..:l~s:::.::o::.~ot::.:h:...:..z..V_..::a:.:..n~d=---P:...:.u-=b;.::l'-=i..:c,__-.:A...:.f.:...:...f..:::a:..:i...:.r...:.s • 1973-1974, pp.160-180.

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND

VIRGINIA 23f73